↓ Skip to main content

The sad truth about depressive realism

Overview of attention for article published in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The sad truth about depressive realism
Published in
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, January 2018
DOI 10.1080/17470210601002686
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorraine G. Allan, Shepard Siegel, Samuel Hannah

Abstract

In one form of a contingency judgement task individuals must judge the relationship between an action and an outcome. There are reports that depressed individuals are more accurate than are non-depressed individuals in this task. In particular, nondepressed individuals are influenced by manipulations that affect the salience of the outcome, especially outcome probability. They overestimate a contingency if the probability of an outcome is high--the "outcome-density effect". In contrast, depressed individuals display little or no outcome-density effect. This apparent knack for depressives not to be misled by outcome density in their contingency judgements has been termed "depressive realism", and the absence of an outcome-density effect has led to the characterization of depressives as "sadder but wiser". We present a critical summary of the depressive realism literature and provide a novel interpretation of the phenomenon. We suggest that depressive realism may be understood from a psychophysical analysis of contingency judgements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 159 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 50 29%
Unknown 18 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 101 59%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 24 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2023.
All research outputs
#888,026
of 25,649,244 outputs
Outputs from Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
#65
of 1,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,182
of 451,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
#15
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,649,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.